Do it yourself

Self-service technologies, such as websites and kiosks, bring both risks and rewards

SO YOU want to withdraw cash from your bank account? Do it yourself. Want to install a broadband internet connection? Do it yourself. Need a boarding card issued for your flight? Do it yourself. Thanks to the proliferation of websites, kiosks and automated phone systems, you can also track packages, manage your finances, switch phone tariffs, organise your own holiday (juggling offers from different websites), and select your own theatre seats while buying tickets. These are all tasks that used to involve human interaction. But now they have been subsumed into the self-service economy (see article).

Many people complain about companies outsourcing work to low-wage economies: but how many notice that firms are increasingly outsourcing work to their own customers? In theory, companies can save money by replacing human workers with automated self-service systems, while customers gain more choice and control and get quicker service. There is even talk of self-service doing for the service sector what mass production did for manufacturing, by enabling the delivery of services cheaply and on a massive scale. Surely the expansion of self-service into more and more areas is to be welcomed?

Not necessarily. When it is done well, self-service can benefit both companies and customers alike. But when done badly—who has not found themselves trapped in a series of endless touch-tone menus?—it can infuriate and alienate customers. In their desire to cut costs, many companies deliberately make it difficult to get through to a human operator; yet their phone or web-based self-service systems do not always allow for every eventuality.

In areas where self-service is only just starting to take hold, this is less of a problem: fuming customers can, after all, always take their business elsewhere. But if every bank were to adopt impenetrable self-service systems, disgruntled customers would no longer be able to express their discontent by voting with their feet. Such a scenario ought to provide an opportunity for some firms to differentiate themselves: some banks, for example, already promise that their telephone-banking services always offer the option of talking to a human operator. But in return for guaranteed access to humans, many firms will simply charge more.

As a result, people who prefer not to use self-service systems (such as the elderly) will be forced to pay higher prices. This is already happening: many travel firms offer discounts to customers who book online. Buy your tickets the old-fashioned way and you must pay more. Firms are, in effect, introducing penalty charges to persuade customers to use self-service systems. Some customers might resent this.

Another objection to self-service is that while it saves companies money, it does not always save their customers time. In the best cases, it does, of course: checking yourself in at the airport or tracking your own packages on a shipping firm's website can be quicker than queueing or making a phone call. But as more and more tasks are unloaded on to customers, they may start to yearn for the (largely mythical) days of old-fashioned service. Again, this ought to provide an opportunity for specialists (such as travel agents) who can offer a convenient, one-stop-shop service.

All of this suggests that there are limits to how far self-service can be taken. Companies that go too far down the self-service route or do it ineptly are likely to find themselves being punished. Instead, a balance between self-service and conventional forms of service is required. Companies ought to offer customers a choice, and should encourage the use of self-service, for those customers that want it, through service quality, not coercion. Self-service works best when customers decide to use a well designed system of their own volition; it infuriates most when they are forced to use a bad system. Above all, self-service is no substitute for good service.